Slander Season Begins

Slander Season Begins

It's election time once again, and so the mudslinging is expected to pollute the airwaves to 100% saturation. Hey, are you actually expecting a campaign debate about platforms and programs? Don't be ridiculous. What you can expect are slander and defamation galore, not to mention the spreading of lies. 

Complementing this reality is our love for showbiz gossip. As of this writing, the word war between comedian-actor Dennis Padilla and his beautiful children with Marjorie Barretto are competing "Trump's tariff tantrum" (as one editor deftly put it) and China's military drill for an impending invasion of Taiwan. The noise generated on social media, I figure, could power solar panels and nuclear reactors enough to avoid outages for 10 years. 

If we are not careful, we can easily get caught up in the ensuing maelstrom. After all, who doesn't love to listen to juicy stuff? As one veteran media man once pointed out, "That's why FB reels are most effective as clickbait."

It behooves us, therefore to reminder ourselves of basic do's and don't's. What can we discuss in public and what can we not? 

What I learned is that, public matters, including very public acts of public officials concerning matters of public concern are par for the course. Private matters, including private faults or sins, when discussed in public is gossip: malicious and defamatory in nature. In Christian moral terms, gossip, whether true or not, is slander, if uttered inappropriately -- that is, if discussed with a third party who has no business knowing it.

In legal terms, as a former colleague turned lawyer pointed out, there are notable differences. "Truth is a defense to defamation whether as libel (written form of defamation) or slander (non-written form of defamation). If defamation is against a private person, then malicious intent is presumed, but if against a public person, you have to prove negligence."

She explains further that defamation in the Philippines is "more confined to imputing to someone a crime, vice, or defect that tends to put a person in dishonor or discredit him/her. So for example, if you call someone who is indeed bald "kalbo," then this is not considered defamation, but if you call someone "prostitute," then it is a case of defamation."

There are a few exceptions to the rule against gossip and malicious speech.

In the case of persons considered as "public property" like showbiz people and celebrities whose livelihood depends on the public consumption of their professional and personal affairs, their issues may be legally discussed in public by common folk. If a celebrity airs his/her dirty laundry in public, that would be fair game for public, er, interpretation and analysis.

(Personally, I would still be uncomfortable lest I end up judging a person's character especially since I don't know him/her personally and I am not privy to the whole story. (Remember that every story has two sides -- even three sides: the sides of the two antagonists and the side of the one caught in the middle and took a neutral stance like, say, Switzerland).

There are very few other exceptions when it is legitimate or necessary to discuss a person's faults with a third party, like when a sibling reports another sibling's wrongdoing to their parents with aim of correcting a mistake, or when you are confessing your sin to a priest, or when you're in a counseling session when you need to reveal identities, but in confidence and within a safe space, or when you are reporting a crime to the police when a misdeed takes on a public dimension.

Another important exception is when discussing an issue to share a lesson or illustrate one's point, but without revealing identities.

An extreme case is during war or when facing criminals, murderers, torturers. Of course, why would you reveal that you are hiding 1,000 Jews in your basement, or that you are entrusted with the family's jewels in the attic, or that you know the state's secrets? Being overly honest in this case would be plain stupid, even under the pain of torture and death, as long as the aim is to uphold what is right and good and true and protect life and limb and property.

It is sad that, during elections, a lot of people take slander lightly. They think it is okay to spread lies, assume doubtful things as truth, and invent malicious things against fellow candidates when it is, in fact, equivalent to murder, the murder of reputations. 

The worst cases are out-and-out cybercrimes, when some people have the gumption to steal other' people's identities to make threats or extort money from the unsuspecting.

In Christianity kasi, when it is none of your business to talk about a person's private faults with a third party (emphasis on private), it is not just uncharitable, it is a serious sin even if the accusation is true because it is impossible to take back what you have released like minute spores or seeds in the four directions of the wind. How much more when the presumption proves to be untrue? -- it becomes a case of bearing false witness against thy neighbor. 

Righteous speech is one of the hardest things to obey, of course. But we can't deny its wisdom, especially when we find ourselves on the receiving end of malicious thoughts from a judgmental public.